Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

:homo:It's not just this forum. It's like this all over Conservo-Bot-America. I've got a neighbor, very much like Accountable. Retired Air Force major, retired from the state of Oklahoma as a college mathematics instructor, drawing Social Security, enjoys top notch health care from TriCare. He's got all those GOVERNMENT benefits, but thinks everybody elses should be cut. On top of all that, he inherited a significant sum from his father, so he zero financial concerns.

The pinnacle of hypocrisy. And they can't see it, or more likely, choose to ignore it.

Interesting, no?

Interesting, yes. My impression is that the Tea Party is composed of many who want taxes cut but somehow think their SS and Medicare will survive. Most aggravating is this notion is that low taxes= job creation. Except that the GOPpers instead of acknowledging we are at historically low taxes (as compared to the 50's), instead of acknowledging the idea is farcical, because if it worked, we'd all ready see job creation. No, instead, they look at the cameras with a straight face and say taxes must be even lower to stimulate the economy. It's nothing more than welfare for the rich and somehow they think the government can run on air or they want the government to crumble, but won't acknowledge that.

The other night on Bill Maher, Ann Coulter was on said that government employees were a burden on the economy. Apparently she wants no functional government. I'm aggravated that Maher did not ask her if soldiers (govt employees) were a burden too?

I think you need to mention the fact that the Democrats didn't want to raise it while the GOP was in power. Hell, both Reid and Obama voted against it in 2006, and Reid even had this to say.

So that new debt was bad in 2006, but it's good in 2011? Now that Obama has involved us in a third unfunded and illegal war? The hypocrisy on both sides of the issue is ridiculous.

Thanks for pointing this out. We do need to get our spending under control, but I can't buy into a program that cuts spending without raising revenue.

Your point can be stronger if you used proof instead of blind partisan rhetoric.

Calling me a blind partisan is really weak especially when you want to make a point so badly, you fail to see your chart confirms my point. Thanks!

 

[Alien Allen]

Minor when are you going to understand that the tax rates of the 50's comparison is full of holes. There were so many writeoffs that people paid about the same amount of tax at the end of the day. All we have done is to remove some of the writeoffs in a trade for lower rates.

We don't have a funding problem. We have a spending problem. It is purely political posturing bullshit to think raising taxes on the rich will accomplish anything. It will make is seem fairer to those on the left but it won't amount to a hill of beans in the long run.

As to govt employees being a problem.. Yes they are. Forget what they earn. That is not a problem. The real problem is the sheer numbers of employees combined with those that get defined benefits. No way in hell can we sustain the growth in govt. Take a look and you will see that in many areas the biggest employer is either the state or federal govt. That is ridiculous.

 

[Minor Axis]

We don't have a funding problem. We have a spending problem. It is purely political posturing bullshit to think raising taxes on the rich will accomplish anything. It will make is seem fairer to those on the left but it won't amount to a hill of beans in the long run.

The standard Republican/Conservative Mantra. No one is talking about fucking the rich, just go back to the tax rates under Clinton. It was not a hardship then and it's not one now. Using it as an excuse to keep the wealthy's tax rates were they are or lowering them even more as what the GOPpers want to do is a FUCKING DISGRACE.

As to govt employees being a problem.. Yes they are. Forget what they earn. That is not a problem. The real problem is the sheer numbers of employees combined with those that get defined benefits. No way in hell can we sustain the growth in govt. Take a look and you will see that in many areas the biggest employer is either the state or federal govt. That is ridiculous.

I'm all for a more efficient government, but not a non-existent government. Look at the votes in the House, if they had their way all meaningful regulation would be gone. Apparently your number one goal is to lower your tax burden, but I for one, want clean food, water, and air and don't mind paying for it. While I'm at it, I want fair labor laws, fair and effective business oversight, a reasonably sized armed forces, a sound infrastructure, and effective public education, and an economy that serves the majority, not the rich minority. In reality all that costs money and it's both a spending issue on one side balanced by revenue on the other. You people who frame the issue as spending only, don't have a legitimate leg to stand on. Every budget (you name it) consists of revenue vs spending. First they knocked down revenue and then when we come up short, of course all social programs, must be cut. The GOP leadership are a bunch of shit heads and what is most disillusioning are the ignorant "want their cake and eat it too" voters who put them into power and can't see that if you are an average citizen, the GOPpers are not fighting for you. Jeez.

Obama and the Dems have put a bigger deficit reduction package on the table, than the GOP, but the Shitheads refuse to negotiate because they are not gonna raise taxes under any circumstance, *maybe* even if we default. That is not negotiating, it's a line in the sand. I thought it was bad under Bush. The GOP has become political toxic waste.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Same old argument from the right (aka libertarians) about trickle down economic theory. If it actually worked, our economy would be booming, and everyone would be richer. Any reasonable person can see it. But some cling to the alter of Reaganomics, long after it has failed.

Warren Buffet on trickle down economics:

Warren Buffett: 'Trickle Down' Theory Hasn't Worked (VIDEO)

Billionaire Warren Buffett said that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire for the richest Americans and that the "trickle down" economic theory hasn't worked.

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett told ABC News in an interview set to air later this week. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett said in the clip from ABC News' "This Week with Christiane Amanpour."

47 Millioniares have formed a group called "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength", and they too know trickle down has fialed:

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.
Sincerely,

CYNDA COLLINS ARSENAULT*
Superior, CO

DR. BETTY BARDIGE*
LAWRENCE BENENSON
New York, NY

DANIEL BERGER
Philadelphia, PA

Nancy Blachman
Burlingame, CA

JAMES BLACK*
BRADY BRIM-DEFOREST
Los Angeles, CA

Robert S. Bowditch JR.
Brookline, MA

David A. Brown*
Berkeley, CA

MARK BUELL
San Francisco, CA

RICHARD CARBONE
Williamstown, NJ

DOUG CARLSTON*
San Rafael, CA

DAVID CHIANG
Las Vegas, NV

Ben Cohen
San Francisco, CA

BILL COLLINS
Buffalo, NY

TOM CONGDON
Denver, CO

ROB DAHLE*
Salt Lake City, UT

DAVID DESJARDINS
Burlingame, CA

DOUG EDWARDS
Los Altos, CA

Paul and Joanne Egerman*
Boston, MA

BOB EPSTEIN*
Berkeley, CA

Ronald Feldman
New York, NY

Jerry Fiddler
Berkeley, CA

Joseph M. Field
Bala Cynwyd, PA

Christopher Findlater*
Naples, FL

CHARLIE FINK
Washington, DC

Eric Fredricksen
Los Gatos, CA

DAVID FRIEDMAN
Longmont, CO

GAIL FURMAN
New York, NY

Ron Garret, PhD*
Emerald Hills, CA

BILL GAWTHROP*
Yorkville, CA

David Goldschmidt*
Princeton, NJ

Joshua Gordon
Las Vegas, NV

GARRETT GRUENER*
Oakland, CA

DOUG GULLANG
Wayne, IL

RICHARD GUNTHER
Los Angeles, CA

Paul Haggis
New York, NY

NICK AND LESLIE HANAUER
Seattle, WA

SUZANNE AND LAWRENCE HESS*
San Diego, CA

Arnold Hiatt
Boston, MA

Leo Hindery, Jr
New York, NY

SAM AND ANNE HUMMEL*
BILL JANEWAY*
New York, NY

KAREN JENSEN*
FRANK JERNIGAN
MELISSA C. JOHNSON*
Kirkwood, MO
JOHN S. JOHNSON*
New York, NY

Rob Johnson*
New York, NY

WAYNE JORDAN
Oakland, CA

William Jurika
Piedmont, CA


JOEL KANTER*
Vienna, VA

JOSHUA KANTER*
Sandy, UT

Rochelle Kaplan
Salt Lake City, UT

Ravi Kashyap
Franklin, TN

JOHN KATZMAN*
New York, NY

JIM AND JOAN KLEMIC*
John Kortenhaus
Plano, TX

SARA KREBSBACH
DAVID LEVINE
CHARLES LIEBMAN*
ROB AND DIANE LIPP
Los Angeles, CA

ART LIPSON
Salt Lake City, UT

EUGENE LONG*
Plymouth Meeting, PA

MICHAEL MARKS
Red Bank, NJ

BOB MCCARTHY
WIN MCCORMACK
Portland, OR

GRAHAM MCDONALD
Philadelphia, PA

GERALD MCHUGH*
DENNIS MEHIEL*
New York, NY

HERBERT MILLER
Washington, DC

Vibhu Mittal
Palo Alto, CA

Moby
New York, NY

WILLIAM J. MORAN
New York, NY

MARIO MORINO
Rocky River, OH

EILEEN A. MURPHY, MD
CHRIS NELSON
Barrington, RI

Peter Norvig*
Palo Alto, CA

LARRY NUSBAUM*
Phoenix, AZ

FRANK PATITUCCI*
Pleasanton, CA

Morris Pearl*
New York, NY

JUDY PIGOTT
Gregory Rae
New York, NY

BERNARD RAPOPORT
Waco, TX

GLENN REINL
GREAT NECK RICHMAN
New York, NY

JONATHAN ROSE
New York, NY

GUY AND JEANINE SAPERSTEIN*
Piedmont, CA

Heike Schmitz*
Palo Alto, CA

FRITZ SCHNEIDER
San Francisco, CA

ERIC J. SCHOENBERG
New York, NY

DAVID SCHROEDERS
Sarasota, FL

SYBIL SHAINWALD*
New York, NY

SUSAN SHORT
New York, NY

Craig Silverstein
Mountain View, CA

MICHAEL STEINHARDT
New York, NY

SARAH STRANAHAN*
SANDOR AND FAYE STRAUS
Lafayette, CA

MAUREEN TATE*
SUNIL TOLANI
New York, NY

SUSAN AND ED VAN DOLSEN*
PHILLIPE AND KATHERINE S. VILLERS
Concord, MA

SCOTT AND CHRISTY WALLACE
Washington, DC

HON. DAVID WALKER
Bridgeport, CT

David and Vinitha Watson*
Oakland, CA

PETER WEINBERGER
New York, NY

MARK WHISLER*
GEORGE ZIMMER
Piedmont, CA

* individuals who support letting tax cuts expire for incomes above $250,000/year

There's much more, but let's see the reaction to the above facts first.

 

[Alien Allen]

define meaningful regulations Minor

I could give you a laundry list of meaningless ones that directly effected my business that accomplished not one damn thing

You guys act as if before 1970 we had people dropping like flies..

And you also parrot the democrat/liberal mantra of bull shit that govt would be gutted.

Holy fuck if we just dialed back the govt 15 years we could cut a ton off the govt expenditures. And that was in your fucking glory days of Clinton

 

[Johnfromokc]

define meaningful regulations Minor

I could give you a laundry list of meaningless ones that directly effected my business that accomplished not one damn thing

You guys act as if before 1970 we had people dropping like flies..

And you also parrot the democrat/liberal mantra of bull shit that govt would be gutted.

Holy fuck if we just dialed back the govt 15 years we could cut a ton off the govt expenditures. And that was in your fucking glory days of Clinton

Same old shit. Nothing meaningful said. Again.

AA, you could tell us your "laundry list of regulations" that affect your business. Hell, you could even tell us what this mystery business is and we might have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Accountable]

Most aggravating is this notion is that low taxes= job creation.

You're right. The phrase should be lowered taxes = job creation, meaning that positive action of the gov't giving back (or not taking as much) tax dollars will prompt businesses to expand. Problem is you can't lower taxes appreciably from practically zero. The reason it worked in the past was that taxes were relatively high. Now they're not, so it won't work today like it did back then.

Thanks for pointing this out. We do need to get our spending under control, but I can't buy into a program that cuts spending without raising revenue.

Why not? If spending is actually cut rather than simply reducing the annual increases, less revenue is needed.

Calling me a blind partisan is really weak especially when you want to make a point so badly, you fail to see your chart confirms my point. Thanks!

The reason I posted it was to give your partisan rhetoric some kind of basis in reality. I like you. It's a little embarrassing that you don't put forth even the least effort to google a little factual data. You're welcome. And here's another bit that that chart shows you can point to: apparently the dems are willing to raise the debt ceiling for anybody, but the Repubs fight Dem presidents, but roll over for Repub ones. So in this case Repubs are the bigger hypocrits.

Not that it's sunk in yet but I'll try again. I haven't said you were wrong; I've only pointed out that your beloved Dems are the same as the Repubs. But you only see one side and are not only blind to the other's abuses, but sometimes actually try to rationalize their behavior.

You spew, sorry, parrot (I have to keep up with the new vernacular) this bullshit hyperbole:

Apparently she [Ann Coulter] wants no functional government.

I'm all for a more efficient government, but not a non-existent government. Look at the votes in the House, if they had their way all meaningful regulation would be gone. Apparently your number one goal is to lower your tax burden, but I for one, want clean food, water, and air and don't mind paying for it. While I'm at it, I want fair labor laws, fair and effective business oversight, a reasonably sized armed forces, a sound infrastructure, and effective public education, and an economy that serves the majority, not the rich minority.

It's all implications without saying anything or offering a shred of any kind of support. You imply that "the other side" wants NO government, NO taxes, only unmeaningful regulation ... and expect to be taken seriously. Not gonna happen. You're better than that.

Obama and the Dems have put a bigger deficit reduction package on the table, than the GOP, but the Shitheads refuse to negotiate because they are not gonna raise taxes under any circumstance, *maybe* even if we default. That is not negotiating, it's a line in the sand. I thought it was bad under Bush. The GOP has become political toxic waste.

It has become your habit to put the dem spin on everything. The Dems put in a tax raise that the Repubs won't go for and the Repubs put in a smaller debt ceiling raise that would mean doing this all over again at election time.
Here's what I see: Both sides are offering something the other side wants tied to something their base would crucify them for, virtually guaranteeing that they won't accept it. They'll take it down to the wire, then either 1) Compromise on something both sides can claim victory for, or 2) (less likely) Obama will push to the end then invoke the 14th Amendment and raise the debt ceiling anyway.

 

[Minor Axis]

The reason I posted it was to give your partisan rhetoric some kind of basis in reality. I like you. It's a little embarrassing that you don't put forth even the least effort to google a little factual data.

Embarrassing? Get real. What I said was the truth, I know it is the truth, there is no requirement that I or anyone who posts a well known fact has to back up every statement with a link. I like you too.

 

[Tim]

Why not? If spending is actually cut rather than simply reducing the annual increases, less revenue is needed.

Don't you understand that $1.8 trillion of our debt is because of the tax cuts over the last 10 years.



Once again, numbers are important. Bush came into office with a surplus and quickly squandered it away. Our country WAS on the path to eliminating our debt and so we can again. But this will never happen under republican rule. Why does the debt go down with democratic presidents and goes through the roof with republicans? Just look at that chart (It was prepared by the CBO) an notice what would happen if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. It would add $1.8 Trillion over the next 10 years putting us in the black once again. Now show me where you can make cuts alone to accomplish that.

You spew, sorry, parrot (I have to keep up with the new vernacular) this bullshit hyperbole:
It's all implications without saying anything or offering a shred of any kind of support. You imply that "the other side" wants NO government, NO taxes, only unmeaningful regulation ... and expect to be taken seriously. Not gonna happen. You're better than that.

Did you ever here this quote? "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
That was said by Grover Norquisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#cite_note-37. He was the driving force behind the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and he's the one that had the republicans sign his pledge. Not just some of them, but almost every single republican member of congress has signed this pledge. So the man who wants to shrink government to the size where he can drown it in a bathtub, gets almost every single republican in the house to sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, yet they don't want to destroy the government?

 

[darkcgi]

id rather be beat on the head with a red log than a blue one
there's no win with government and politics
its all about greed pure evil

 

[Accountable]

Don't you understand that $1.8 trillion of our debt is because of the tax cuts over the last 10 years.

Tax cuts did not create debt. Tax cuts never create debt. Shortage of tax revenue are not responsible for debt, nor does shortage of tax revenue cause debt. Irresponsible borrowing to support irresponsible spending causes the debt. Failure to raise the tax revenue to pay the debt is a separate issue entirely.

The difference seems small but it is major. Our debt is because of failure to control spending.

But that doesn't address the issue you responded to. Cutting spending without raising revenue will get the job done, only more slowly. I think slowing down would be very good for us.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once again, numbers are important. Bush came into office with a surplus and quickly squandered it away. Our country WAS on the path to eliminating our debt and so we can again. But this will never happen under republican rule. Why does the debt go down with democratic presidents and goes through the roof with republicans? Just look at that chart (It was prepared by the CBO) an notice what would happen if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. It would add $1.8 Trillion over the next 10 years putting us in the black once again. Now show me where you can make cuts alone to accomplish that.

Careful that you're not ignoring half the picture. It was a Dem president and Repub congress, in combination with the dot com fuego that brought the deficit down (also careful you don't confuse debt & deficit).
For cuts: knock out all the extraneous bullshit federal departments that manage domestic issues such as the Dept of Ed. (no I didn't say eliminate all federal regulators but don't let that stop you from claiming I did, John). Stop legislators' pension plans. Then cut the military empire by 50-75%. That'll be a good start.

Did you ever here this quote? "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
That was said by Grover Norquist. He was the driving force behind the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and he's the one that had the republicans sign his pledge. Not just some of them, but almost every single republican member of congress has signed this pledge. So the man who wants to shrink government to the size where he can drown it in a bathtub, gets almost every single republican in the house to sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, yet they don't want to destroy the government?

They don't want to destroy the government. They are the government. It's hyperbole to gain votes. The Party will say anything to keep getting votes, and do anything to keep getting campaign contributions.

 

[Minor Axis]

Tim,
Your NYTimes graphic is incredibly illuminating for anyone who wants to compare track records. Anyone who can't see that cutting taxes was a major factor in heading towards the debt we currently face in combination with the debt ceiling crisis the Republicans have instigated has a conservative "Me" agenda in their back pocket and of course, the end justifies the means. However if we default, the end may not be exactly be what they imagined.

Accountable,
Your "tax cuts never caused debt" is lame and the worse kind of Republican inspired retoric. And guess what, your wrong. I assume you know how government works and cutting revenue without cutting spending has caused debt and you are being foolish, myopic, obtuse, or deceitful to imply otherwise. And this is exactly what the GOPpers want. Cut taxes, cause a revenue crisis, then try to cut the social programs that used to be funded. For someone who claims they are all alike you sure sound like a Republican most of the time.

 

[Alien Allen]

If tax cuts are doom and gloom then how come almost every time they are done revenue gains

and take a look at revenue versus spending over the last umpteen years. You pick the date.

revenue has almost always risen year after year

why is it that the spending always outpaces the spending???

regardless of who is in charge of the money

come on Minor and Tim

tell me please

.

 

[Accountable]

I assume you know how government works and cutting revenue without cutting spending has caused debt.

Right. Now, separate those two circumstances you mention and see which one is true.

Cutting revenue has caused debt.
Cutting spending has caused debt.

Y'know, if I had a mortgage, and I suffered a pay cut (reduction in my revenue), would my mortgage bill get bigger? No.
If instead, I decided to opt for a smaller cable package (reduction in my spending), would my mortgage bill get bigger? No.
What would cause my mortgage bill to get bigger? Two things: 1) not paying on time or 2) refinancing so that I could borrow more money.
The same is true for the government.

All that aside, we're getting away from the original question. You said that you "can't buy into a program that cuts spending without raising revenue," To which I asked "Why not? If spending is actually cut rather than simply reducing the annual increases, less revenue is needed." How is that not accurate?

For someone who claims they are all alike you sure sound like a Republican most of the time.

That's because you have your burro blinders on, but it's understandable.
This whole debt ceiling charade is a kabuki for the masses. The ceiling will be raised, any meaningful promises will be placed so far out in the future that Washington will find some excuse to ignore them, and taxes will be raised enough to make a claim at election time without hurting the corporate sponsors. Either that, or Obama will reinterpret the 14th Amendment and unilaterally raise the ceiling himself, giving precedent for any and all subsequent presidents to do the same ... and you can bet your ass that they will. You won't see a Repub president saying "Oh no! That's an abuse of the office and I won't do it." At most, he'll say "Hey don't blame me. They started it."

Both Repubs and Dems will say anything to keep getting votes, and do anything to keep getting campaign contributions.

Both Repubs and Dems will cooperate to keep any real competition out of any election.

Both Repubs and Dems will increase the size of government and its reach into our personal lives. They don't undo each other's work.

 

[Minor Axis]

Accountable, as usual we are going no where in our exchanges.

If I had a mortgage and decided to stop working, where before my budget was balanced, now I'd have a spending problem. But the spending problem developed as a direct result of my decision to stop working. I decided to stop working just like conservatives decided that the wealthy were paying too much in taxes. You frame it in a way that is convenient to make your silly argument that debt is a result of spending and has nothing to due with revenue. If you can't acknowledge this relationship, there is no point talking about it with you.

If tax cuts are doom and gloom then how come almost every time they are done revenue gains.

In the big picture, the better question is who has benefited the most from tax cuts? And if tax cuts cause job creation, why aren't we rolling in jobs? We lost millions of jobs under Bush. You act like they (Conservatives in positions of power) really give a damn about domestic jobs. They are just as happy to see those jobs go to a 3rd world country if they can save a dollar. The entire ""tax cuts creates jobs" is glorified welfare for the rich and a snow job aimed at stupid Americans. It's not just tax cuts going on, it's the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans as a result of exported jobs, in addition to rampant greed as corporate management raid their own companies, in addition to trillions spent on unwarranted wars. The U.S. Middle Class is under full scale assault and you and Accountable are just fine with it.

I never said it was bankrupt at this time

Just do the worker to retiree ratio and it is clear as a bell it is not sustainable as it currently is

The travesty is that if this program had not been robbed by both parties since it's inception it would be rock solid today.

 

[Accountable]

Accountable, as usual we are going no where in our exchanges.

If I had a mortgage and decided to stop working, where before my budget was balanced, now I'd have a spending problem. But the spending problem developed as a direct result of my decision to stop working. I decided to stop working just like conservatives decided that the wealthy were paying too much in taxes. You frame it in a way that is convenient to make your silly argument that debt is a result of spending and has nothing to due with revenue. If you can't acknowledge this relationship, there is no point talking about it with you.

Okay fine. You don't want to continue discussing your original statement and prefer to mischaracterize my post (again). I get it.

Washington's economic problem is not the result of only having the rich finance the majority rather than the supermajority. The problem is in the spending.
President Bush and his Repub congress started a wild spending spree without paying for it, which subsequent congresses, controlled by both sides of The Party at one time or another during Bush's tenure, likewise failed to pay for. It needs to be paid for. I think we can agree on this much, right?

Now this is where I need you to take off your blinders and turn off the Dem talking points.

Our spending is currently somewhere around 40% of GDP. I found this chart at http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html#usgs302 and I'm not vouching for them in any way, but the chart looks close enough to what the news guys are saying.



I hear some people hollering that they want to go back to the taxes of the Clinton era because the economy was great. The economy was great, but not because of taxes. Spending in 1999/2000 was about 32% of GDP. If you can support cutting the spending to 32% of GDP at the same time as increasing the taxes to 199 levels, I'm willing to listen. Now resist going off on what you think I think, what you think, I want, or parroting Obama's lie that we'd have to stop paying social security or medicare, and maybe we can get somewhere in this exchange.

 

[Minor Axis]

Okay fine. You don't want to continue discussing your original statement and prefer to mischaracterize my post (again). I get it.

Washington's economic problem is not the result of only having the rich finance the majority rather than the supermajority. The problem is in the spending.
President Bush and his Repub congress started a wild spending spree without paying for it, which subsequent congresses, controlled by both sides of The Party at one time or another during Bush's tenure, likewise failed to pay for. It needs to be paid for. I think we can agree on this much, right?

Now this is where I need you to take off your blinders and turn off the Dem talking points.

Our spending is currently somewhere around 40% of GDP. I found this chart at http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html#usgs302 and I'm not vouching for them in any way, but the chart looks close enough to what the news guys are saying.



I hear some people hollering that they want to go back to the taxes of the Clinton era because the economy was great. The economy was great, but not because of taxes. Spending in 1999/2000 was about 32% of GDP. If you can support cutting the spending to 32% of GDP at the same time as increasing the taxes to 199 levels, I'm willing to listen. Now resist going off on what you think I think, what you think, I want, or parroting Obama's lie that we'd have to stop paying social security or medicare, and maybe we can get somewhere in this exchange.

Sure, lets put spending and tax rates back like they were in 2000, and while we are at it, bring back the good paying jobs that corporate America yanked out from under our feet. Just don't talk to me about blinders. Since Clinton taxes were cut substantially and we immersed ourselves in economically suicidal wars and jobs continue to be exported for the entire period further reducing tax revenue. You logic is that as revenue plummets based on conservative policies, that we have no choice but reduce spending. Wrong. If the spending is considered worthy, we can throw out wealth-centric policies and increase revenue to pay for our programs.

 

[Accountable]

You logic is that as revenue plummets based on conservative policies, that we have no choice but reduce spending. Wrong.

You're insane.
Just continue increasing spending? Up and up and up?

 

[retro]

You're insane.
Just continue increasing spending? Up and up and up?

They want to increase taxes as well as spending... which makes no sense because it simply perpetuates the problem. We need to decrease spending back to 2000 levels at the bare minimum. Hell, I'd love to see us reduce spending back to 1996 levels to be completely honest here.

I also really really really loved how Obama slammed Medicare Part D while praising Medicare. Quite the doublespeak, even for him.

 

[Accountable]

I'd rather see pre-1913 levels, adjusted for inflation, of course.